Globalization, by Cole Meunier

Psy “Gangnam Style”           

Globalization, “worldwide integration and development” according to www.dictionary.com. Whether you like it or not it is here to stay. I personally think it can only occur faster. Everywhere you look there are influences from around the world whether it's art, music, or even tangible goods. With modern technology becoming readily available around the world it creates an even broader spectrum of cultures merging with one another. 

Globalization is one way that the ideology of Democracy is spread. When most people think of it (globalization), I feel that they are thinking of it from a manufacturing form of view. Whether it be bananas from South America, a new BMW from Germany, or tea from India. I personally think of it as the spreading of ideas. Sure you can get tangible goods from other countries but with the internet you can transport ideas across the ocean or country. As a nation you can only get better by comparing yourself as a whole to another. This leads to competition on a global scale making better products and the merging of ideas to become even greater than they once were.

With globalization, many new technologies have emerged to help spread ideas and culture. Look at Facebook or Twitter, it has created a place where just about anyone in the world can communicate with each other and spread ideas. Some would even point to the Arab Spring as utilizing these resources to help with their struggles of overcoming abusive dictatorships. The abused citizens started off these revolutions by organizing peaceful protests for many to join in. This became widely popular with hundreds of thousands of protestors attending these events. But of course these technologies are not only for revolutions, but have also been widely used for the spreading of art. For example Youtube has made it easier for people to engage in many different cultures.

I remember when I was a lot younger and going on Youtube and watching funny videos with friends. Over the years I have noticed the website becoming more multi-cultural with videos. It is not uncommon to see videos from Russia, Germany, or many other states around the world. In fact in recent years it has even become fairly normal from many other states become popular around the world. Take Psy, he is a South Korean rapper who has become wildly popular with his most recent video getting over 476,332,414 views in exactly three months and still rising. It has hit number one in the charts in the US, Korea, Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the UK. These are all very different markets yet someone from South Korea can manage to influence all of these states. Just imagine if you can influence all states with an ideology, and emergence of cultures.

Yet Psy is not the only popular artist in the United States from another state. Volbeat is a rock band from Denmark and has become very popular in the rock scene here in the United States, but other countries are not the only ones influencing culture around the world. Many other countries are affected from the US through globalization. Look as movies and TV shows. There are tons of American shows that are either broadcasted around the world or adjusted to mesh into the culture of the nation. Look at America's Got Talent, many other states have created their own version from India to Britain to South Korea. I believe that if the world finds more things that we have in common, globalization will only occur that much faster helping create new and better products and ideas.

On Death Penalty, South Dakota & Minnesota, by Michael Wermers

Today a man was put to death for the murder of a prison guard.  This is only the third execution in South Dakota in the last 65 years; one 65 years ago, one five years ago, and today.  South Dakota is one of many states in America that holds a penalty of death for certain crimes.  In the United States most crime punishments are set at a federal level.  The federal level of punishment is the base punishment level for the states.  The individual states can then decide to make the punishment more severe. The states cannot make the punishment less severe than the federal government level.  This has both positive and negative implications for those committing the crimes.  The punishment of death is a perfect example.  For example, Minnesota does not have the death penalty for any crimes.  If the murder of the prison guard occurred in Minnesota the murder could not be sentenced to death.  Another example would be the legalize use of marijuana, even for only medically necessary, in California.  In this case California’s law is less stringent than the federal governments.  So, while California will not prosecute the users the federal government could still go in and shut down the growers, and prosecute both the growers and users.

Coming back to states setting penalties more severe than the federal government, the fact that states can set penalty levels different from each other may cause great concern for the law-abiding citizen of many states.  I may be hard to fathom murders would be more active in states without the death penalty, and I would concede there is not a lot of credibility in that argument.  Even if that is the case it may be very likely that drug dealers and traffickers will be more active in state with less severe penalty.  In accepting this argument it is also important to understand that the act still needs to result in a crime.  Sticking with drug crimes, if drug use is legalized in a state, the price will go down, and the drug dealers will move on.  Where drugs are still illegal the price will stay high, and it will be more advantages for the drug dealers to pursue their trade in states with lower penalties.

Even though a state may make the punishment more severe than the federal set punishment, a federal punishment may be added to the state punishment.  For example, if you commit a felony in a state the punishment may be different in Minnesota than it is South Dakota, but the offender will have the federal punishment of no longer being allowed to have a firearm (own, carry, or possession) added to the punishment.

I have received an Associate Degree in Law Enforcement; in so doing I became very familiar with the laws and penalties associated with them in Minnesota.   An area where Minnesota and South Dakota have the same penalty is convicts’ voting rights.  In both of these states, convicts can earn the right to vote back after they have served their term of incarceration, and completed both parole and probation terms.   Differences also exist between the states in what is a crime and what is not, not just the penalty when a crime is committed.  A current example, and a hot button issue, is texting while driving.  It is illegal to text and drive anywhere in Minnesota.  In South Dakota it is illegal to text in drive in Sioux Falls, but not in anywhere else in the state.

What is a crime and what is not?  What is the penalty?  Is it less severe in this state or that?  Should there be more effort to align the crimes and penalties?  France is a country where no matter where you are in the country a crime is a crime and the penalty is the penalty.  There may be an argument to made for this type of uniformity; however, that would not be possible in the United States, because the United States constitution reserves to the states certain unalienable rights.  Among which is the right to establish punishment levels. 

On Persepolis, Catcher in the Rye & How "People are People", by Jameson Goetz

Marji, Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood.

Before I first picked up the book, I had definitely underestimated the potential value of reading Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood. The comic book, written by Marjane Satrapi, demonstrated the potential of comparative study. Political Science 299: Comparative Politics is designed as a method of studying the different governments, specifically each government's level of democratization. We may find ourselves struggling to understand the actions of leaders of foreign governments because we do not entirely understand the variety of factors, including those that deal with economics, religious motivations, and "strange" cultural practices that influence those decisions. Still, we can always find at least some level of mutual understanding with the experiences of other people. Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood successfully adds that human element to our course of study. 

Catholic Nun teaching her “properly dressed” students.

Marjane Satrapi utilizes pop culture references that almost anyone can find relatable. As an alumnus of Catholic Junior High and Catholic High School, I can relate to Marji's frustration with her school's strict dress code, as well as what she perceives as her school's attempts to indoctrinate its students. When I was 14 years old, I remember becoming frustrated with what my school was teaching its students. We all asked a lot of questions, but no one seemed to appreciate our inquisitive nature. When the woman chastises Marji in the street for dressing somewhat quirky, proudly displaying her Michael Jackson and Iron Maiden memorabilia, I definitely could relate to her frustration. How would I have made it through my pre-teen years if I had not been able to proudly display my loyalty to the Minnesota Vikings or my favorite band, Nirvana?  The angst we experience when growing up is obviously a universal phenomenon.

After reading Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood, I became somewhat angry, and I asked myself, "Why had I not read this sooner?" This comic book, although relevant for people of all ages, would have the greatest affect on readers the same age as Marji, the story's main character. Until I traveled to Guatemala, I don't believe I understood the true meaning of the phrase, "the universal human experience". I learned that people are people, and everyone, regardless of their background, tend to have similar desires, regrets, worries, etc.

Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye.

Although I do not want to discredit the power of traveling abroad and experiencing other cultures, I do not think that we have to wait for such opportunities to begin to understand the concept, "people are people". If I had read this book when I was 14, I believe the experience would have had a noticeable impact on my worldview. When I was in junior high, The Catcher in the Rye was not a part of our schools curriculum (I assume that the school believed that the book's content was unsuitable for a Catholic School). Still, I read the book independent of my English class at school. Reading The Catcher in the Rye was a powerful experience. Holden Caulfield, the book's main character, presented a character universally relatable for almost all teenagers; anybody who read Catcher in the Rye during their early teens understands. 

These books, The Catcher in the Rye and Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood provide an artistic experience that promotes empathy, an emotion that can have nothing but a positive effect on the world. I do not understand why these books, as well as other similar books, do not make up a larger part of middle school and secondary school curriculums. 

 “Late Thursday afternoon, after losing a series of attempts to include Hispanic history in state social studies standards, State Board of Education member Mary Helen Berlanga gazed down at a new stack of amendments — stripping victories she thought she had gained at a meeting in January, including the inclusion of Hispanic heroes of the Alamo.” The Texas Tribune

On 2012 Nobel Peace Prize & the EU, by Jameson Goetz

On October 12th, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the European Union was the winner of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. The committee explained its decision, stating:

"The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe." 

Nobel Peace Prize Medallion superposed on the EU Flag.

Many in the public have been quick to criticize the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award organization's peace prize to the European Union. The announcement was met with controversy for a variety of reasons, and much of the controversy surrounding the decision involved perennial criticisms of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Many have criticized the committee for its perceived Eurocentrism, as well as its perceived political and ideological bias.  

I recently read an opinion piece written by Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Nirenstein criticized the decision as "unbearably politically correct." Before reading her piece on the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision, I had never heard of Nirenstein. After some investigating via Google, I found out that Nirenstein also serves as a columnist for il Giornale, an Italian newspaper that has generally been characterized as promoting a right-wing ideology. The majority of Nirenstein's criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision revolves around her disagreement with some of the European Union's policies. Still, Nirenstein does not address any of the reasons the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Rather than reject the idea of the European Union having unified the continent, she argues that the European Union's policies have significantly harmed the economy, as well as that those policies do not appropriately address the threat posed by radical Islam. 

Even small businesses have addressed the controversy.

I also recently read an opinion piece written by Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent Canadian journalist, that I found much more agreeable. Dyer's opinion piece primarily tries to make the point that much of the controversy surrounding the Norwegian Nobel Committee results from Nobel Peace Prize's somewhat unsuitable title. According to Dyer, the prize "should actually be the Nobel Democracy and Human Rights Prize". Dyer cites many of the European Union's accomplishments concerning the promotion democracy and the recognition of human rights. Still, Dyer does recognize some of the downfalls of the European Union. In his article, Dyer criticizes the European Union for its "democratic deficit" at the bureaucratic level. He also gives more credit to the United Nations for the promotion of democracy and the advancement of human rights. Still, states his belief that the European Union deserves of the award.

No one (or nothing) is perfect. I think as long as the Norwegian Nobel Committee continues calling it the Nobel Peace Prize, the announcement of every recipient of the award will be met with controversy. Can anyone, or anything, live up to an award celebrated as a Peace Prize?

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 1979 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

Territorial Arrangement, by Christopher Michels

Right off the bat the topic of Territorial arrangement of political systems seemed interesting to me. Being a History major with a focus on United States History, this is one topic that I at least know the basics about. Today, because the power has already been split thanks to our founding fathers, the idea of territorial arrangement seems like there is a simple solution. However, if one looks into American History, even the founding fathers were pretty evenly split on how to approach this tough arrangement and had many quarrels. This is proved through historical documents such as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Although they reached a decision and split the government between state to state and national system, it didn’t end there.

Even today in the United States, which is a country that many other countries look to when searching for democracy or leadership, is still trying to figure out where the national government ends and the state governments begin. And if a well-established Democracy such as America still cannot quite get it right, this proves how difficult it could be to other countries trying to obtain what we have, rich or poor, such as Ethiopia, according to John T. Ishiyama. (page 209) I have the opinion of many, and that is that whatever the combinations and distribution of power, each has its pros and cons. This has proven to be true in my own country, and I am sure it can be said of other countries as well. Ishiyama points out that there are Three major systems, and they are Unitary, Federal, and Confederal. Each is striking and works in its own way, but each can also lead to problems such as a thirst for power, or a failure to get anything done.

Unitary System is the most popular choice among countries. One of these countries is China. Pros and cons quickly come to mind when China's name gets dropped. A major pro is that laws are passed more quickly, more effectively, and everyone gets treated rather than it differing territory to territory. Because there is less time for debating, there could be advantages such as a stable economy. However, individuality can be lost. A thought that comes to mind is the famous photo of one man standing in front of a tank before he gets trampled. Whether or not this is the direct effect of a Unitarian philosophy, it is a great analogy of how individual voices are all but lost. I can see how a unitary system could be effective for other countries, but I think it could never work for America for the simple reason of size. Countries with a unitary system such as France and China are not nearly as big as the United States, and due to the fact that America is split into 50 states alone proves how difficult the task could be. This problem especially rings true for problems such as the court system in America. Although in many countries with unitary systems still have smaller governments, their power is still given by the main government, which can lead to sticky situations, inequality, and questionable leadership.

A system that hits closer to home is, of course, the Federal System. This is the system that America has chosen to adopt, and it too, just as the unitary system, has proven to be effective and ineffective in different areas. The point I made before on size of the country being a factor in a certain system can be backed up by the mere fact that both America and Russia, two of the largest countries in the world, are Federal. A major problem with a federal system is the problem of overlapping. Because this is considered a blog essay, my opinion is pivotal to get my thought across. My thoughts when it comes to overlapping is simple, I agree that it is a problem. Though I think problems in this Country do get solved, I find overlapping to be extremely confusing. An example that comes to mind is gay marriage. Right now state governments are treating the problem differently, but like many large issues from the past, it is only a matter of time before it goes to the Supreme Court. This begs the question of who has more power, and if states should be able to differ on key issues. This same issue, however, proves how the Federal system is effective.

Homosexuals can be compared to other struggling minorities from the past. They are fighting for, in their words, “equal rights”.  The reason I put that phrase in quotation marks is because a major battle that has and is continuing to break out is the definition of rights. Some do not see the rights of homosexuals the same way they see the rights of men and women, different races, or even different age groups. The LGBT community, however, sees this problem as a basic problem of their human rights not being met. The reason freedom of speech and groups such as the LGBT community can have a voice as loud as they do is in part, because of the Federal System the United States adopted. Quick responsiveness is due to Federal System, for it does not take as long for a voice to be heard if the government is split into smaller groups.

The third system is a Confederal System, which to be honest, is the system I know the least about. The farthest my knowledge goes is the Civil War, when the South called itself the Confederacy. Three of the four examples Ishiyama gave when naming Confederal Systems are no longer the systems used today, and the fourth is the European Union, which is not that old. The major con I have gathered from reading the textbook is how weak they are. It is much harder for a smaller government within a larger one to have its voice heard. Confederal systems, in my opinion, seem, at best, to have only one pro, and that is to annoy the larger government and be part of the veto system in order for a problem to be looked at. The problem with this, is, depending on the Confederal systems size and problem, they can be put to a halting stop, such as in the Civil War.

Territorial Arrangements of Government is fascinating for the simple reason that no two are the same, but often times, they have worked for hundreds of years. This is important to look at when comparing governments, because it can give insight to how governments work and operate. Personally, im a fan of the Federal system, but then again, I am extremely biased. I don’t think a Unitarian System is horrible either, for it is proven to be effective. I am just glad the confederal system in America did not succeed after they succeeded.

Source: Comparative Politics: Principles of democracy and democratization. By John T. Ishiyama

Capital Punishment in the US

Brave Soldiers of Comparative Politics!

Here is a map, complementing our class discussion on federalism:

 Capital punishment in the US. 

     SD has it, fellow Vikings in Minnesota don't!

E.C.W.

Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective

Folks, this is from me.
Supplementary info from around the world, upon our class discussion over death penalty
    E.C.W.

Ethnic Conflicts, by Anonymous 1

            In 1994 Rwanda’s population reached seven million. Three groups were organized according to their beliefs: Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa. Hutu is the majority that makes up 86 percent of the population, and Tutsi is 14 percent. And Twa is made of 1 percent of the entire population. A decade ago, we had a genocide caused by the conflicts between two groups, Tutsi and Hutu, and the President Habyarimana was killed after his plane was shot down and crashed. Hutu decided to declare genocide against all Tutsis; they received an order from the headquarters of the rebel leader. The massive killing of Tutsi began after the death of their president.

 The Rwandan genocide resulted in eliminating Tutsis. Even though Tutsi were an ethnic minority, they did not want the majority group to occupy them. Hutu did not want to sign an agreement to share power with the minority group. Both groups disagreed and the conflict erupted like a volcano. These are some problems that people could have solved peacefully, instead of using deadly force.

The Rwandan Tutsis looked up to the UN and United States to stop this violence, but they were ignored as if nothing were happening. “Not only did international leaders reject what was going on, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government.” Rwanda’s Tutsi were shocked and hopeless because they know they were going to get slaughtered. We always ask ourselves why the world did not react. 

             Tutsis were suffering, waiting for help until the last moment. Tutsi rebels could not do anything because they did not have enough ammunition to defeat government rebels. Secondly, France and the UN had their forces there to protect civilians, but that is not what they did. They were silent killers. Tutsi rebels were not needed until the last moment when the UN abandoned innocent civilians to get slaughtered in front of their eyes. “They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance.” Why did they not receive international assistance? The UN was guilty of not doing so.

The UN was in charge of protecting civilians. Even today we still ask the United Nations questions about why they did this to us; their response is still unclear. There must be someone behind this bloodbath. France gave deadly weapons to use against these civilians. According to the Human Rights Watch, the United States and the United Nations were aware of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it from happening. How come the United States of America did not stop France from supporting the killings? France was hosting the genocide in Rwanda. The international community did not investigate or question France for violating human rights. France gave machetes to the rebels that call themselves “Interahamwe,” a terrorist organization that seeks to overthrow the government using coup d’etat or using deadly force. These Interahamwe received weapons supplies from France and Tutsi had enough evidence and facts to prove how France was the behind the crimes.  

The government of France was accountable for the massive killing of innocent civilians, and it was in charge of the genocide. Even today Tutsi are being targeted in Congo by Interahamwe, and they are accused of much crime in Congo. Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) is hunting these criminals who committed genocide. According to Gatumba survivors, in 2004 Tutsi were targeted again in Burundi, in small city called Gatumba, where 166 lost their lives. These 166 were innocent people who fled to Burundi for their safety. Again, the international community did not do anything to bring justice. They were refuges and still got killed. The Interahamwe seemed to have violated the international law of not killing civilians. After France started the genocide, they left so that Hutu could finish up their mission. It did not take that long for RPF to react against this killing. The genocide lasted for one hundred days.

Now, Tutsi rebels have one choice of dying trying or fight against the government. At that time Paul Kagame was the rebel leader for Tutsi rebels, they decided to take an action against the government regimes. According to the United Nations Human Right Council “The civil war and genocide only ended when the Tutsi-dominated rebel group, the RPF, defeated the Hutu perpetrator regime and President Paul Kagame took control. But it was too late, 8,000 people were already being murdered. If the RPF did not defeat Hutu perpetrator Tutsi will be wiped out from Rwanda. Now the minority have been in control of the government since 1994.

France has been accused of hosting the genocide. Who can bring France to justice? Genocide survivors are still waiting for justice to be done. French government is holding some criminals from Rwandan genocide. The international court did not do anything to bring France to justice. Justice must be served fairly and equally. Rwandan government is doing its best to prevent the genocide from happening again. France does not have a diplomatic corps or an ambassador in Rwanda because they committed a crime against humanity. France is doing its best to build a good relationship with the Rwanda government. According to Lignet.com since 2007 after Nicolas Sarkozy was elected he tried to improve and restore the relationship with Rwanda.

They suffered to recover, but today Rwanda is continuing to grow and improve; and develop its economy. Today in Rwanda, if you called someone a Tutsi or Hutu you will to go to prison. It is a felony against the humanity. All citizens are equal; they do this so that they could prevent genocide. I highly recommend going to see the beauty of Rwanda and its culture.

Sources:  

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

                                                                

http://www.lignet.com/InBriefs/Rwanda-France-Relations-Will-Likely-Improve-In-Aft.aspx

On US, Britain, China, Great Power Politics, Democratic Waves, and Huntington, by Christopher Michels

           When the question came up in class October Second on which country or countries influence the U.S.A, my mind immediately went to England. Fair enough that I would think that, considering they founded this country originally, and the characteristics of that culture are the same characteristics that our country adopted in the 1700’s. Even the way America cuts its grass is from English tradition. Cutting ones grass represented wealth in England, and the tradition of constantly mowing lawns remains today. And though powdered wigs are a thing of the past, there are still traces of the United States modeling itself after England.

            Through tradition, many values today still reflect the early culture of the U.S. A vast majority of the country speaks English; we still abide by the Constitution and look with honor upon the Declaration of Independence. However, aside from these early cultural effects present day United States is more modeled after different countries, such as Japan, China, and even our own neighbors like Canada. China itself has many similarities to the U.S. The U.S and China have the two largest economies in the world, both countries use up most of the world’s oil, and both countries have large populations, China having the largest in the world. (China.usc.edu) Populations are not something that the U.S. models itself after, however, so one must look further into the relationship between the countries to see the relationship. One major aspect of life that the U.S does in fact model after China is our Economy. While our democracy does cause some differences for our economy than theirs, they still have a booming economy, which is something we could learn from, being in the crisis that we are now. China is also a leading country in trying to decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses going into the atmosphere, and in a constantly changing green time, the U.S is right behind China, doing its best to help the environment. The facts are there that the U.S and China are both leading countries of the world today, and because of this, it is nearly impossible for the U.S not to model itself after China. If something China is doing is working well, the U.S will do the same thing to get great results, and vice versa. 

As for other countries that the U.S is modeling itself after, I would say that it’s not many. If anything, the United States tries to make its own path and set an example for other countries. I know that this sounds selfish, and America already has a reputation for being stuck-up, but being a major superpower, America was already thrust into a leadership position. Technology-wise and as far as education goes, the U.S is constantly looking to Japan. And Germany right now has a great economy and the United States is for sure looking at that. Russia is another large superpower that the U.S is always butting heads with, but not so much modeling itself after. The idea of Democracy that America has can go as far back as early Greece, but we twisted it into our own way.

            October Second also brought up the topic of Democracy going up in down, the analogy being waves. The waves of democracy often start with a war, such as in the first, which was triggered after the American and French revolutions. Democracy always seemed like a peaceful idea to me, so it seems strange that violence is a major triggering point. It makes sense however, for through troubled times ideas like Democracy guide peoples actions. Economic and Cultural factors also greatly influence democracy, according to the Stanford News. According to research, working classes rise up through great economic conditions, and they then seek power, which is a triggering point for democracy. This goes hand and hand with capitalism, however, capitalism does not need to be present to trigger Democracy.

            I think that Democracy is different and varies country to country like we discussed in class, some countries may want to become more of a democracy, but do not have the drive, the resources, or the authority to do so. I know that I take advantage of the democracy I have in the United States. While I was given it from birth, others are fighting for it, and blood is constantly being spilt. The majority of the people in the country might not even all want the same thing, which could pose some problems.

            Following with Samuel Huntington’s democratic waves, there also has to be reverse waves too, for waves rise and fall repeatedly. The reverse waves are comprised of military coups and regimes such as the Nazis and Fascists. This is interesting to me, for neither the Nazi party nor the Fascists had the same values as the Democracy in America has. Personally, I think it stinks that there are reverse waves, and I don’t quite understand them. I do not see them as reverse waves as much as struggles in achieving democracy. Democracy cannot be obtained overnight, and now both Germany and Italy have some sort of Democracy going on. They had to learn from their mistakes to get to where they are today.

            I realized while writing the blog that the two topics of conversation in this class correlate to one another. The leading countries in the world such as the United States and China set examples for other cultures, even with our freedom and democracy. This is why the United States and Russia were at odds with one another before, Communism and Democracy were both being pursued by developing countries, and neither country wanted to see their ideals slip through the cracks. The United States of America has a very tough position in the world today. Being a superpower, all eyes are going to be on her. The Democracy she has is an example to all others.

www.uio.no

http://www.uio.no/english/research/interfaculty-research-areas/democracy/news-and-events/events/conferences/2012/papers-2012/Strand-Hegre-Gates-Dahl-wshop7.pdf

China.Usc.Edu

http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1543&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Cartoon on Comparative Subjugation of Women, suggested by Florencia Magni

Folks, this Comparative Politics course is truly a global tour d'horizon!

Let's open our eyes to how politics is done around the world!

But when things look grim,

Let's try to maintain a healthy sense of humor..:)

Feel free to suggest your favorite editorial cartoons for our blog!

Dr. E.C.Wiltse

4th Wave of Democracy? by Cole Meunier

Syrian Rebel Fighters in Aleppo

Samuel Huntington believed that democratization came in spikes over periods of time. For example the first spike came with the French and the American revolutions. For every spike to occur you must also have a fall, for instance in the 1920’s and 1930’s in Europe with fascism. You may be wondering, what does this have to do with anything, but this involves the world still today. Some would even say that a fourth spike may be happening now in the Middle East and Northern Africa, or you may have heard it as the Arab Spring.

With the Arab Spring being the fourth democratic wave and the French and American revolutions being the first means that there are two others. The second wave came post WWII with Japan, Germany and Turkey. Following this peak, Turkey fell away from democracy during a military coup in the 60’s, along with many Latin American countries. This led to the next wave of democracy in the 1970’s with Spain, Greece and Turkey back to Democracy. With a rise in democracy, it led to another reversal in the Balkans during the 1990’s. This then leads to the fourth and most current wave of democratization, with the Arab Spring.

The Arab spring started in late 2010 to the beginning of 2011. It  began due to the lack of human rights,  and abuse of dictatorships, along with many other factors. The citizens began to start protesting due to the issues. Many of the younger citizens became more internet savvy and were able to set up many protests through social media. This led to many countries filtering and censoring the internet even more than they may have already. In some cases countries such as Libya, Egypt and Syria have had full internet shutdown for periods of time to help stop the spread of the democratic ideologies. This would only make the riots even more important in the eyes of the rioters.

16 countries have witnessed large numbers of their citizens protesting, including four countries which successfully forced their leaders from power including; Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. This then leads to a whole new problem where the people now choose the new government. Tunisia had this problem after 14 January 2011 when president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was taken from power after very large political protests. All current members of the government were ousted and banned from ever going back, regardless of whether they were later elected or not. Mohammed Ghannouchi then became the prime minister. With protests still continuing the prime minister stepped down and democratic elections were held in October. On the 23^rd of October citizens of Tunisia voted in a 217 member constituent assembly which was now in charge of creating a brand new constitution. The moderate Islamist party won the election with 37% of the vote. This now gave the Arab Spring a flagship country about what could happen with the democratic revolution. With a state like this I believe that it has influenced many others and motivated other Arab revolutions.

As was said before, Tunisia wasn’t the only country to oust its leader but that it was the first to succeed, giving hope to many other states. Egypt started its revolution just 11 days after Tunisia ousted its leader. Egypt’s revolution was very similar to Tunisia, and ended up electing Mohammed Mursi as the first democratically elected president through the Supreme Constitutional Court, by judges within the government. Not all countries were as lucky to go through a revolution so smooth and non-violent. Countries such as Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war.

The Syrian protests began around the same time as many of the other countries around mid-January 2011. On the 6^th of March, 15 children were arrested by Syrian security forces, which spawned an even larger amount of protesters. By mid-April hundreds of thousands of protesters began gathering in the main square of Homs. This worried the president Bashar-al-Assad, and on the 31^st of July he sent tanks into many cities to quell the uprising. This led to one of the biggest days of the uprising with an unconfirmed amount of 136 citizens killed. Bloodshed would continue even to this day, 18 months from the beginning of the uprising with the total number of deaths rising beyond 20,000 total, along with over 100,000 refugees in Turkey and tens of thousands in Jordan, testing the capabilities of these countries to provide support in these quantities. This has led to international talks with the U.N. about foreign intervention. This strategy did work in Libya where NATO Forces proceeded with a no-fly zone, but it is unknown whether it will work against Syria due to its larger military force, as the number of defecting officers is much lower than other states, therefore keeping domestic support.  Along with the no-fly zone in Libya it also had a large number of military defectors. Unless this occurs in Syria, I believe that any revolution will be crushed by a military take over.

With all of the refugees flooding into the surrounding states, I feel that these governments will be the most pressured to act rather than states from afar. If Syria were to have foreign intervention, Turkey will more than likely be the state that would intervene solely, at least in the beginning. They are the one of the few states that are involved now due to the fact that mortars are landing on their soil and killing Turkish civilians. And rightfully so I believe that they should at least to protect their own territory, but as for ousting Bashar al-Assad, I believe this is in the hands of the Syrian people.

It may still be too early to tell if the Arab Spring truly is the fourth wave of democratization, but only time will tell.

All information on this blog was found on:

www.cnn.com

www.aljazeera.com

www.bbc.co.uk

On 9/11, Al Qaeda & Attacks on US Consulate in Benghazi, by Michael Werner

            George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  In fact, that history may not have occurred that long ago.  Americans remember September 11, 2001.  The events of that date are etched in the memories of all most all Americans.  They have been recorded in the written achieves, so all can draw upon them, remember them, and learn from them.   It was on this date that Al Qaeda attached America.  They high jacked four planes.  Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center buildings in New York, one crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania.  Over 3,000 people were killed.  Many believe that Al Qaeda has again attached America.  Not on its own soil, as in 2001, but in Benghazi, Libya.  On September 11, 2012 the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.  History has repeated itself.

The attack occurred when heavily armed Islamic militants entered the consulate compound and fired upon and set fire to the consulate.  The attack resulted in the death of four American citizens.  While this number is significantly lower than the number that died in 2001, they died, it was an attack, and it is now being considered an act of terrorism.

In defense of history not repeating itself, the U.S. government initially implied the attack was a grassroots riot response to the American made anti-Muslim video.  Later the State Department indicated it was conducted by a militia associated with Al Qaeda’s branch in North Africa.  This was supported by Libya’s president Mohamed Magariaf.  He was of strong belief the attack was carried out by an Al Qaeda group hiding in Libya.  He supported this belief based on the sophistication of the attack and the alignment with the date of the original attack.  Based on recent media reports and comments out of the State Department, the Al Qaeda terrorist attack, not a grassroots riot, is the supported conclusion.

This raises the question; what was, or maybe the better question is what was not, learned from the first attack?  It has been well documented that there were warning signs ahead of both of these attacks.  At issue is whether or not those warning were credible.  We know that the Libyan Ambassador had been requesting additional security.  Some of those requests were met, but others were not.  Certainly, history leads to a path of landing with too much security.  So, why weren’t all the security requests met?  Has time alone caused a loosening of security?  Were the warning not considered credible?   Have we learned from history on American soil, but not on our overseas embassy locations?

Since September 11, 2001, it is a new world.  The history of this day cannot be forgotten.  The relaxing of what we learned from this day will cause history to repeat itself again.  When it comes to terrorism, let’s remember the words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”